Romans 5:12-14 … Christus Victor or Penal Substitution?

[atpollard]

Did we sin in Adam Romans 5:12-14
(offering the whole paragraph for a little context)

Romans 5:12-17 [NKJV]
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift [is] not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift [is] not like [that which came] through the one who sinned. For the judgment [which came] from one [offense resulted] in condemnation, but the free gift [which came] from many offenses [resulted] in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

Don’t let the fancy terms scare you. The questions are pretty basic and anyone that has read a Bible probably has an opinion. Since these “opinions” have been argued for over 1000 years, (2000 years if we discuss all the opinions), there is probably no one “right” answer.


In that spirit, let’s try to have some fun and be polite.

The actual questions:

• Is the GUILT of Adam’s sin applied to all of us?
• Is just the CURSE (consequences) of Adam’s sin applied to all of us?
• Is Adam’s sin, Adam’s sin and our sin, our sin?

JESUS DIED FOR OUR SIN. (Every Christian agrees about that).

• Did God pour out His wrath on Jesus as a substitution for the punishment that we deserved?
• Did Jesus die to defeat SIN and DEATH and the CURSE (having nothing to do with wrath)?
  

While these may seem unrelated, there are natural connections between the first set of questions and the second set of questions.

 

[atpollard]

Most Pastors and Churches teach, and most people believe, in Penal Substitution. You have probably hears SOMEBODY say that God is angry at our sin and poured out His wrath on Jesus, punishing Him on the cross in our place and for our sins.

Personally, I don’t believe that is true. The irony is that that idea replaced an older idea called “Christus Victor” … Jesus died on the cross to defeat Sin and Death and break the CURSE of Adam. God never poured His wrath against an innocent man (even his son) … Jesus was killed by sinful men as a perfect sacrifice. In the OT sacrifice, the lamb was slain, but the priest never HATED the lamb and poured his wrath upon the lamb.

Rather than discuss CHRISTUS VICTOR more, I thought I would torn to the question of Romans 5 and the quote. Yes, I think that we are born under the CURSE of Adam. No, I do not think that the sin that Adam did is a GUILT that is credited against us (or any person except Adam and Jesus). What we inherit is the “corrupted” body that begins to age and die from conception. What we inherit is a “corrupted” mind in which our thoughts are not like God’s thoughts … “the greatest is the servant of all” and “love those that hate you” are CRAZY TALK to the natural mind. You get the idea. We are “hopelessly defective” from conception and incapable of getting it right without God’s help. That is what we inherit from Adam. That is what Jesus removes for us.

So please share YOUR thoughts. (Remember, my position is both in the minority and 500-1000 years out of date.

 

[justbyfaith]

Both are valid doctrines.

I think that your passage indicates Christus Victor but that Romans 3:23-27 declares penal substitution quite nicely.

 

[Fastfredy0]

The actual questions:

• Is the GUILT of Adam’s sin applied to all of us? YES Romans 5:12
• Is just the CURSE (consequences) of Adam’s sin applied to all of us? YES, unless your among the elect. Question doesn't list the consequences and thus is open to interpretation.
• Is Adam’s sin, Adam’s sin and our sin, our sin? Yes. If Adam kicked Eve in the butt I pay no consequences and vice versa.

JESUS DIED FOR OUR SIN. (Every Christian agrees about that).

• Did God pour out His wrath on Jesus as a substitution for the punishment that we deserved? YES ... interesting question .... I would say GOD poured out His wrath on the HUMAN NATURE of Christ. Strictly speaking, wrath is not an attribute of God’s nature, but is his “holy justice against sin”. Joel Beeke Reformed Systematic Theology ... I have one weak reason. 2 Corinthians 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Isaiah 53:5
• Did Jesus die to defeat SIN and DEATH and the CURSE (having nothing to do with wrath)? YES, Heb. 2:14 so that through [experiencing] death He might make powerless (ineffective, impotent) him who had the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and [that He] might free all those who through [the haunting] fear of death were held in slavery throughout their lives.

I think I agreed with what you said. I'm sure there is some divergence, but I am not aware of it.

God never poured His wrath against an innocent man (even his son) … Jesus was killed by sinful men as a perfect sacrifice. In the OT sacrifice, the lamb was slain, but the priest never HATED the lamb and poured his wrath upon the lamb.

God wrath is justice against sin. God was angry at what is represented by Christ who is a sin offering. I suppose the priest might be angry at the sin the lamb represented.
Aside: ONly thing I can think of concerning God being 'ticked' at Christ is "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" ... got to think it was was Christ was representing

 

[Mungo]

Did we sin in Adam Romans 5:12-14
(offering the whole paragraph for a little context)

Romans 5:12-17 [NKJV]
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift [is] not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift [is] not like [that which came] through the one who sinned. For the judgment [which came] from one [offense resulted] in condemnation, but the free gift [which came] from many offenses [resulted] in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

Don’t let the fancy terms scare you. The questions are pretty basic and anyone that has read a Bible probably has an opinion. Since these “opinions” have been argued for over 1000 years, (2000 years if we discuss all the opinions), there is probably no one “right” answer.


In that spirit, let’s try to have some fun and be polite.

The actual questions:

• Is the GUILT of Adam’s sin applied to all of us?

No

• Is just the CURSE (consequences) of Adam’s sin applied to all of us?

Consequences apply to us but I don't like the word "curse"

• Is Adam’s sin, Adam’s sin and our sin, our sin?

Adam's sin

JESUS DIED FOR OUR SIN. (Every Christian agrees about that).

• Did God pour out His wrath on Jesus as a substitution for the punishment that we deserved?

No. I see four problems with Penal Substitution#
1. It would not be just for God to punish an innocent person for the sins of someone else

2. The punishment due for sin is not only death but eternal damnation. Jesus is not suffering eternal damnation.

3. If Jesus paid the legal penalty for all sins then it would be unjust to punish anyone for their sins. This would be double punishment for the same offence.

4. If the legal penalty for sin has been paid then no-one should be refused entry to heaven for their sin. There is no penalty due to us for any sin we commit.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

1. It would not be just for God to punish an innocent person for the sins of someone else

That's right. When Paul speaks of Jesus being made a curse for us, he means our Lord was defamed by those who hated him,

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) Deu.21:22-23

People aren't accursed because they're crucified. They're accursed for committing sin worthy of death,

Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. Mk.14:64

So when Paul says our Savior became a curse for us, he means Jesus was lied about.

 

[atpollard]

1. It would not be just for God to punish an innocent person for the sins of someone else

I agree. I am not particularly concerned about 'human justice' feeling that it is "unfair" (the term usually used when people decide to judge God), rather it appears to violate God's Justice as He recorded it in His Bible.
"The soul that sins shall die" [Ezekiel 18:20]

2. The punishment due for sin is not only death but eternal damnation. Jesus is not suffering eternal damnation.

An argument could be made that our corporal sins (the sins we commit in life) are punished by death with "hell" being the punishment reserved for rejecting the Christ ... which only those IN HELL are actually guilty of. Prior to JUDGEMENT DAY, nobody deserved eternal damnation, so that was not a debt for Jesus to pay.

3. If Jesus paid the legal penalty for all sins then it would be unjust to punish anyone for their sins. This would be double punishment for the same offence.

4. If the legal penalty for sin has been paid then no-one should be refused entry to heaven for their sin. There is no penalty due to us for any sin we commit.

"Limited Atonement", while unpopular, offers an alternative solution to these "problems" by arguing that Jesus "gave his life as a ransom for MANY" (Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45) and died for "His sheep" (John 10, John 21) but did not die for "all without exception" or "the goats/tares/children of the devil". I am just pointing out an alternative theory.

 

[justbyfaith]

Gal 3:13, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

The curse that Jesus took for us was in fact established in that He was crucified.

He didn't deserve it...He took the penalty for us.

 

[Mungo]

Both are valid doctrines.

I think that your passage indicates Christus Victor but that Romans 3:23-27 declares penal substitution quite nicely.

No it doesn't It says Christ was a propitiation or expiation for our sins; not that Christ paid our penalty for sin.
What is being ignored here is forgiveness. The gospel is about our sins being forgiven not paid for.
Jesus taught about forgiveness - Mt 6:9-13 & Mt 18:23-32 to give just two examples.

Gal 3:13, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

The curse that Jesus took for us was in fact established in that He was crucified.

He didn't deserve it...He took the penalty for us.

That doesn't say he took the penalty for us.

 

[justbyfaith]

The cost of forgiveness was Jesus' life blood.

Propitiation means that the wrath of the Father was appeased by the sacrifice that was made.

I believe that this is because Jesus took upon Himself God's wrath and justice so that we wouldn't have to be recipients of the same.

If you disagree, then I think that you are opposing yourself (Acts 18:26, 2 Timothy 2:25).

 

[justbyfaith]

No. I see four problems with Penal Substitution#
1. It would not be just for God to punish an innocent person for the sins of someone else

Why wouldn't it be just; if that Person volunteered to pay the penalty?

2. The punishment due for sin is not only death but eternal damnation. Jesus is not suffering eternal damnation.

He is the infinite God; so it is like one Person not allergic to bee stings taking the sting of many bees for many people who are allergic. It took all the bee stings of the world to kill Him; while one bee sting might be enough to kill any one of us.

3. If Jesus paid the legal penalty for all sins then it would be unjust to punish anyone for their sins. This would be double punishment for the same offence.

No; because the penalty is paid for those who have fulfilled the requirement of faith.

4. If the legal penalty for sin has been paid then no-one should be refused entry to heaven for their sin. There is no penalty due to us for any sin we commit.

That is actually true for the believer. Not so much for the unbeliever.

 

[Mungo]

The cost of forgiveness was Jesus' life blood.

Propitiation means that the wrath of the Father was appeased by the sacrifice that was made.

Exactly. Jesus' sacrifice was appeasement not payment.
And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (Eph 5:2)
Rom 8:34 tells us that Jesus is "at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us". Why would Jesus need to intercede for us if our debt has been paid for?


In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace (Eph 1:7)
Why do we need forgiveness if our sins have been paid for?

I believe that this is because Jesus took upon Himself God's wrath and justice so that we wouldn't have to be recipients of the same.

No, Jesus did not take God;s wrath upon himself and you have no scripture that says he did.

If you disagree, then I think that you are opposing yourself (Acts 18:26, 2 Timothy 2:25).

Acts 18:26 & 2Tim 2:25 saying nothing about sins being "paid for".

It is you who are opposing scripture.

 

[Mungo]

Why wouldn't it be just; if that Person volunteered to pay the penalty?

You think it would be just? Why?

But anyway Jesus did not pay the penalty for our sin whether voluntary or not.
God forgives our sins. Read Mt 18:23-32

He is the infinite God; so it is like one Person not allergic to bee stings taking the sting of many bees for many people who are allergic. It took all the bee stings of the world to kill Him; while one bee sting might be enough to kill any one of us.

That is a weird and irrelevant analogy.

No; because the penalty is paid for those who have fulfilled the requirement of faith.

In what way?

That is actually true for the believer. Not so much for the unbeliever.

What difference does that make.

All you are giving me here is just your personal opinions.
This is the theology section. You are supposed to back up any opinions with scripture.

 

[justbyfaith]

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace (Eph 1:7)
Why do we need forgiveness if our sins have been paid for?

Forgiveness is provided for because our sins have been paid for.

Exactly. Jesus' sacrifice was appeasement not payment.
And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (Eph 5:2)
Rom 8:34 tells us that Jesus is "at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us". Why would Jesus need to intercede for us if our debt has been paid for?

Why do you think that Jesus making intercession for us precludes that our sins have not been paid for?

No, Jesus did not take God;s wrath upon himself and you have no scripture that says he did.

Sure I do. Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10.

But you probably don't understand the terminology given in those verses. Better get yourself a Bible dictionary.

Acts 18:26 & 2Tim 2:25 saying nothing about sins being "paid for".

It is you who are opposing scripture.

I didn't say that you were opposing scripture (although it is true that you are);

I said that you were opposing yourself.

Because you are contending against the very doctrine that can save your soul.

 

[justbyfaith]

What difference does that make.

All you are giving me here is just your personal opinions.
This is the theology section. You are supposed to back up any opinions with scripture.

I thought that it was so basic that anyone would know it. It is Christianity 101.

Try Romans 5:1-2, Ephesians 2:8-9 for starters.

 

[justbyfaith]

You think it would be just? Why?

Why not?

But anyway Jesus did not pay the penalty for our sin whether voluntary or not.
God forgives our sins.

Jesus paid the penalty for our sins.

That is a weird and irrelevant allegory.

It is very relevant.

In what way

Through the shedding of His blood.

 

[Mungo]

Forgiveness is provided for because our sins have been paid for.

Nonsense. If sins are paid for then there is no need to forgive. They have been paid for.

Why do you think that Jesus making intercession for us precludes that our sins have not been paid for?

Because there is no need. The sins have been paid for.
Intercession is needed too obtain forgiveness.

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1John 1:8-9)
It's all about asking for forgiveness
we asked God And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors (Mt 6:12)
Read Mt 18:23-32 to understand the difference between payment and forgiveness.

Sure I do. Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10.

But you probably don't understand the terminology given in those verses. Better get yourself a Bible dictionary.

All those are about propitiation not pouring out wrath.

 

[Mungo]

Jesus paid the penalty for our sins.

Where is your scripture to prove that?

It is very relevant.

No it isn't

Through the shedding of His blood.

The shedding of Christ's blood is for the forgiveness of our sins (Heb 9:22)

 

[justbyfaith]

Nonsense. If sins are paid for then there is no need to forgive. They have been paid for.

Forgiveness is provided for in that they were paid for by Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.

Forgiveness costs something to the One who forgives; this is what God is saying when He tells us that we are forgiven in that our sins have been paid for.

Because there is no need. The sins have been paid for.
Intercession is needed too obtain forgiveness.

Intercession can be so that a person might be made holy; also for restoration of fellowship.

Also, if intercession be made for the benefit of forgiveness, it is so that one may appropriate the forgiveness and the fact that our sins have been paid for.

All those are about propitiation not pouring out wrath.

I don't think you know what "propitiation" means. Better look it up in a Bible dictionary.

Where is your scripture to prove that?

Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10.

No it isn't

It is.

The shedding of Christ's blood is for the forgiveness of our sins (Heb 9:22)

Forgiveness is provided for in that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.

And I will say again that if you disagree, you are opposing yourself.

 

[justbyfaith]

Where is your scripture to prove that?

Why don't you want to believe that Jesus paid the penalty for your sins?